Andrews v. Virginian Ry Co
| Decision Date | 07 January 1919 |
| Docket Number | No. 82,82 |
| Citation | 248 U.S. 272,39 S.Ct. 101,63 L.Ed. 236 |
| Parties | ANDREWS v. VIRGINIAN RY. CO |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[Statement of Case from 273 intentionally omitted] Messrs. A. P. Staples and A. B. Hunt, both of Roanoke, Va., for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Harvey T. Hall and G. A. Wingfield, both of Roanoke, Va., for defendant in error
Mr. Chief Justice WHITE, after making the foregoing statement of the case, delivered the opinion of the Court.
At the threshold, there arises a question of our jurisdiction which we may not overlook and which we must therefore decide. The question is, has this court power by writ of error to review the judgment below; or, in other words, is the authority of the court to review that judgment confined by the Act of September 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726 (Comp. St. § 1214), to the right to do so by certiorari in the mode and time provided by that act? Considering the subject only from the character of the controversy, it is indisputable that the case comes within the generic class as to which the power to review by writ of error was taken away by the act of 1916 and the authority to certiorari substituted. It results that, unless the judgment in question comes under some limitation or exception provided by the statute to the general rule which it establishes, we have no jurisdiction.
There is no room for such exception unless it results from the provision in the statute taking out of the reach of its terms judgments rendered before it became operative. The act was approved on September 6, 1916, and was made operative 30 days thereafter. In form, the judgment to which the writ of error was addressed was rendered on June 16, 1916, before the operation of the statute, and was therefore outside of its provisions. But the question remains, Was the judgment a final judgment at the date named, or did it become so only by the exercise by the Court of Appeals of its power as manifested by its declining to take jurisdiction on November 13, 1916 after the passage of the act? Undoubtedly, before the action of the Court of Appeals, the judgment was not final and was susceptible of being reviewed and reversed by that court. Undoubtedly, also, until the Court of Appeals acted, the trial court was not the court of last resort of the state whose action could be here reviewed. The contention, therefore, that the judgment of the trial court was a final judgment susceptible of being here reviewed by writ of error must...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Southland Industries v. Federal Communications Com'n
...cannot have jurisdiction in the same case at the same time." Lasier v. Lasier, 47 App. D.C. 80, 83. See Andrews v. Virginian Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 272, 39 S.Ct. 101, 63 L. Ed. 236. As appellant elected to petition for a rehearing, the Commission retained jurisdiction; and as it failed to act on......
-
West Virginia Motor Truck Ass'n v. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
...43 S.Ct. 613, 67 L.Ed. 1065; Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 42 S.Ct. 35, 66 L.Ed. 144; Andrews v. Virginian Railway Co., 248 U.S. 272, 39 S. Ct. 101, 63 L.Ed. 236. What constitutes, in this connection, such a "final judgment or decree" is often a question of no little dif......
-
Bailey v. Central Vermont Ry
...Crockett, 234 U.S. 725, 34 S.Ct. 897, 58 L.Ed. 1564. 5 Act of Sept. 6, 1916, c. 448, 39 Stat. 726, § 3. See Andrews v. Virginian Ry. Co., 248 U.S. 272, 39 S.Ct. 101, 63 L.Ed. 236. 6 S.R. No. 775, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. See also the House Report No. 794, 64th Cong., 1st Sess. 7 Act of Februar......
-
Walrod v. Matthews
...question. Virginian Ry. Co. v. Andrews, 118 Va. 482, 489, 490, 87 S.E. 577, 580 (1916), writ of error dismissed, 248 U.S. 272, 39 S.Ct. 101, 63 L.Ed. 236; McCormick, The Law of Evidence (1954) p. 29; Marshall, Fitzhugh, Helvin & Nash, The Law of Evidence in Virginia and West Virginia (1954)......